Walkable, Bikeable and Busable Cities of Canada

[niwell]

Was playing around and saw that the score for this area a few blocks south of me was 54/94/99: https://goo.gl/maps/4CNVmJX7Y3oDVUss9

Aside from this being a very nice area to walk where I discovered that for some reason the pathfinding isn't counting some of the side streets so it thinks you can't walk to directly east to Roncesvalles without going to a more major street first? Turns out the same thing is going on for me, so it thinks my 7 minute walk to most things is actually 15 or so. Very odd

[logan5]

Personal score (Mt. Pleasant West)

Walk - 89 Transit 71 Bike 99

Bike score is likely very high because I live on a major bike route with 2 mobi stations about a block away.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The surrounding environment & public realm still do affect walkability in meaningful ways beyond just "proximity to stuff" though.

Walking 5 minutes to do your shopping here is much more pleasant as a human experience than walking 5 minutes here - even though the latter example has a similarly high density of retail. Having a more pleasant, pedestrian-oriented environment for walking (which inherently also means that there is less space for cars) encourages walking, which in turn begets better pedestrian infrastructure.

When the environment centres the use of cars above all else, then naturally, that becomes the default choice to get there even if it technically is walkable to nearby residents. I wouldn't be surprised if urbanites were willing to walk longer distances for services than some suburbanites drive.

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of this. Just pointing out some of the limitations of walkscores. I suppose living across a stroad from a strip mall means you do have a short walk to your basic necessities, but it is not the sort of thing that is going to really encourage a walking lifestyle as such. I mean, you could live in a power centre parking lot and have a walkscore of 100 but no one would say that is a great pedestrian environment.

It would be cool if there was some way to account for that difference when calculating walkscores... the fact that a Shoppers Drug Mart 100m away on Bloor is not the same thing as a Shoppers Drug Mart on Lawrence.

**************

As for my own walkscore in Winnipeg's suburbia... it's 15/59/44. That's about right to me, I am too far from any main drags to really have any convenient walking destinations nearby. The only places within easy walking distance of my house are schools and personal care homes. On my street walking is pretty much a recreational pursuit. However, we do have good transit service including a very good express route into downtown, and cycling is convenient... I'm basically a stone's throw from a mall, various retail strips and the University of Manitoba. One could get by on transit and bike without too much trouble.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Do you live on top of a Loblaws? LOL

Lol, no, but I own a condo right DT on the main drag. Food Basics is only two blocks away though, as well as many Arabic and Asian grocery stores on Wyandotte, so lots of food options.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Both are walkable cities but the stats are warped by the fact that they are both very small in geographic area. Vancouver only has 670k and Victoria only 90k. In other words all of their city area only envelopes pre-war areas.

A fairer comparison of Toronto/ Montreal with Vancouver would be if you also included North & West Van, Burnaby, Richmond, and NuWest. Conversely Vancouver should only be compared to pre-amalgamation of Toronto & Montreal both of which are much more walkable and have far better transit.

My address in New Westminster is 87/82/46. I live by a SkyTrain station and most errands can be done by foot. However that 46 may be out of date as a new bike lane was just installed near me in December 2020. New West itself is a 72, and probably is only lower because of Queensborough and the West End.

Burnaby gets a walkability score of 60. There are some strong walkable pockets, particularly along Kingsway and Hastings and also near Lougheed Town Centre, but large parts of the city have poor walkability. I also find that municipality relies heavily on "beg buttons" and forcing pedestrians to cross on only one side of an intersection, even close to Metrotown. The area around BCIT has very low walkability, and at least pre-pandemic I recall transit service there was very poor.

Surrey is even lower, at 46, but of course large parts of the municipality are rural, while walkability is good around Whalley and Guildford, and the area of South Surrey right next to White Rock.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It's both. Better pedestrian infrastructure usually means better aesthetics: wide, nicely paved sidewalks, narrower roads, less visible parking, more generous greenery & tree cover, etc (tree cover in particular is important - walking on those suburban arterials in the summer gets hot. While in the winter they feel barren & windswept).

I suspect the mere effort of having to think about a sidewalk, forces some attention to aesthetics usually.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

... and yep it's a great place to bike, you can't ask for much better.

I compared it to some other locations I've lived at that got higher ride scores and can't figure out why? I'm on one of Vancouver's "super" bikeways comparable to most places I've ridden on in Holland, yet it only ranks 84.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by logan5

Bike score is likely very high because I live on a major bike route with 2 mobi stations about a block away.

Ditto - yet 84 for me. It's little things like this that always cause me to challenge the whole methodology.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

What are everybody's personal scores?

78/84/87, also Mt Pleasant, not the best but above average for Vancouver overall.

[Truenorth00]

Speaking about Phoenix, this is the kind of idiocy they face in Arizona:

• Video Link

[Architype]

^So they think new urbanism and higher density will increase traffic problems, but low density suburbs won't?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Architype

^So they think new urbanism and higher density will increase traffic problems, but low density suburbs won't?

Honestly, I don't think crazy Arizonans are the only one who think that. It's not like this kind of ignorance doesn't happen in Canada. It's particularly bad in the US though based on how financially ruinous this trend has been over there.

• Video Link

Post Covid, there's small towns going bankrupt all over the US. There might be some suburbs that follow in due course.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...or-small-towns

Really don't want to see Canada replicate too much of this.

[HomeInMyShoes]

My city, not ranked, is terrible for the most part. My neighborhood is pretty good though. I have two transit route options within two blocks that can get me to downtown within ten minutes, and commercial shopping areas in the suburbs in fifteen minutes. I also have access to a little strip of commercial with a pharmacy, grocery, convenience store, coffee shop, and restaurant within a five minute walk.

My location is pretty awesome, but my location is not the norm.

My location: walk 61 transit 41 bike 47. I would give it a higher bike score, but that is okay.

I estimated my transit based on another street. For some reason being right between two routes means nothing to the algorithm, even though I think it is excellent to be served by two bus routes.

[SignalHillHiker]

Finally got around to inputting some actual addresses. They don't give a transit score for them. So... Walk/Bike

My old home that I just sold is now: 80/43
My current suburban location is: 18/23
jeddy1989's place downtown is: 88/25
Mutual friend in the streetcar suburbs is: 60/38 (Hideous shacky SFD and duplexes, not a tree to be seen, working class)
My hiking buddy farther out in the streetcar suburbs is: 48/43 (Small lots but gorgeous homes, mature trees, everything landscaped, truly beautiful area)
My dream house, absolute fave I'd want to own in the city is: 83/42

It's the purple one. It's perfect.

These all seem pretty fair to me, at least the differences between them make sense.

But many others are ridiculous...

It gives the Outer Battery (4-5 minute walk from the Downtown core) a score of: 23/25

23 is WAY too low for there, it should be as high or higher than my old house.

It gives Craigmillar Avenue (western edge of the rowhouses) a score of: 41/75

That 75 is WAY out of whack. Lots of trails out there but they don't lead anywhere you'd need to go.

Heart of near-core, residential Mount Pearl is a little harsh too: 12/35

Both should be significantly higher than my current suburban location.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How rural was that? That would mean literally nothing within a 30 min walk of your home.

23 Deerhurst Highlands Drive, Hunstville Muskoka
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3439.../data=!3m1!1e3


I think the closets place that wasn't a resort was a Kawartha Dairy on hwy 60.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by shreddog

I compared it to some other locations I've lived at that got higher ride scores and can't figure out why? I'm on one of Vancouver's "super" bikeways comparable to most places I've ridden on in Holland, yet it only ranks 84.

I got 97 and I'm no closer to a bike lane (it's not as good as 10th either). I am close to the seawall though.

[TorontoDrew]

My Bike score is only 92 and I literally can open my front door and be at 2 intersecting bike routes. I have 2 city bike posts on the sidewalk outside my place as well.

https://www.walkscore.com/score/1087...onto-on-canada

[manny_santos]

My childhood home in London is 7/35/35. There's virtually nothing within walking distance other than a school and more houses.

And that's just the way the locals like it.

[Truenorth00]

How about the kids? My wife hated growing up in London. In no small part because she just remembers being bored out of her mind.

• Video Link

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How about the kids? My wife hated growing up in London. In no small part because she just remembers being bored out of her mind.

• Video Link

Aside from growing up in the suburbs, and having grandparents that lived in rural areas, I didn't know anything different growing up. I assumed everyone drove everywhere and that public transit was only used by the poor.

It was only once I travelled outside of Canada that I discovered that the suburban lifestyle is a modern North American phenomenon.